November 24, 2011 at 22:40European court bans providers from filtering traffic
- Transfer
The ruling of the European Court of November 24 put an end to the process lasting 7 years between the Belgian association of copywriters of authors, composers and publishers SABAM and the Internet provider Scarlet. And at the same time, the decision extends to all of Europe.
Now it is impossible to oblige the provider to install a traffic filtering system - at least for all users, in a preventive manner, for an indefinite time and at their own expense.
In 2004, SABAM became worried about the growing popularity of p2p networks and tried through a Belgian court to oblige ISP Scarlet to ban p2p traffic. Then the provider appealed to the highest European authority, where he won the case.
The provider’s lawyer said that forcing filtering would be illegal in terms of ensuring privacy of communications, freedom of information, and rights to protect personal data.
The court agreed, and added that the filtering system would not always work correctly, as a result of which impeded the dissemination of legal information.
The Association of European Providers joyfully supported this decision against “disproportionate technical coercion” to respect copyright. The president of the association said that it was a decision of utmost importance, and that it would be wrong to limit the development of the Internet, which could seriously help restore the economy.
Although the solution does not prohibit blocking unwanted sites, it will not help against some services. For example, atThe Pirate Bay has so many different mirrors and trackers that the only way to stop this service would be filtering, and it is now prohibited.
PS: The translation of the article is not literal, in particular, the squabble between the EU and UK is omitted; I tried to just convey the essence.
Now it is impossible to oblige the provider to install a traffic filtering system - at least for all users, in a preventive manner, for an indefinite time and at their own expense.
In 2004, SABAM became worried about the growing popularity of p2p networks and tried through a Belgian court to oblige ISP Scarlet to ban p2p traffic. Then the provider appealed to the highest European authority, where he won the case.
The provider’s lawyer said that forcing filtering would be illegal in terms of ensuring privacy of communications, freedom of information, and rights to protect personal data.
The court agreed, and added that the filtering system would not always work correctly, as a result of which impeded the dissemination of legal information.
The Association of European Providers joyfully supported this decision against “disproportionate technical coercion” to respect copyright. The president of the association said that it was a decision of utmost importance, and that it would be wrong to limit the development of the Internet, which could seriously help restore the economy.
Although the solution does not prohibit blocking unwanted sites, it will not help against some services. For example, atThe Pirate Bay has so many different mirrors and trackers that the only way to stop this service would be filtering, and it is now prohibited.
PS: The translation of the article is not literal, in particular, the squabble between the EU and UK is omitted; I tried to just convey the essence.